From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Doe v. Mattson

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Oct 23, 2007
No. CV 07-802-JE (D. Or. Oct. 23, 2007)

Opinion

No. CV 07-802-JE.

October 23, 2007


OPINION AND ORDER


On September 17, 2007, Magistrate Judge Jelderks issued Findings and Recommendation ("F R") (#14) in the above-captioned case recommending that Plaintiff counsel's Motion to Withdraw (#8) be GRANTED and that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute (#10) be GRANTED, and that a judgment be entered dismissing this action without prejudice. No objections were filed.

The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may file written objections. The district court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, but retains responsibility for making the final determination. Where objections have been made, I conduct a de novo review. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, I am not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge to which no objections are made. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). In either case, the court is free to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge's F R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

Upon review, I agree with Judge Jelderk's recommendation, and I ADOPT the F R as my own opinion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Doe v. Mattson

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Oct 23, 2007
No. CV 07-802-JE (D. Or. Oct. 23, 2007)
Case details for

Doe v. Mattson

Case Details

Full title:JOHN DOE, Plaintiff, v. KRISSY MATTSON and MULTNOMAH COUNTY, Defendants

Court:United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Oct 23, 2007

Citations

No. CV 07-802-JE (D. Or. Oct. 23, 2007)

Citing Cases

Vanport Int'l v. DFC Wood Prods. Pty Ltd

Counsel has also been permitted to withdraw where they cannot contact the client due to the client's failure…